See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/47813779

The new biological anthropology: Bringing

Washburn's new physical anthropology into 2010
and beyond-The 2008 AAPA luncheon lecture
ARTICLE in AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY JANUARY 2010
Impact Factor: 2.51 DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.21438 Source: PubMed

CITATIONS

DOWNLOADS

VIEWS

40

81

1 AUTHOR:
Agustin Fuentes
University of Notre Dame
76 PUBLICATIONS 843 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Available from: Agustin Fuentes

Retrieved on: 01 July 2015

YEARBOOK OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 53:212 (2010)

The New Biological Anthropology: Bringing Washburns

New Physical Anthropology Into 2010 and BeyondThe
2008 AAPA Luncheon Lecture
Agustin Fuentes*
Department of Anthropology, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN
KEY WORDS
anthropology

biological anthropology, Sherwood Washburn, evolutionary theory, new physical

ABSTRACT
Nearly 60 years ago, Sherwood Washburn issued a call for a New Physical Anthropology, a
transition from measurement and classication toward a
focus on the processes and mechanisms of evolutionary
change. He advocated multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches to the understanding of human behavior, biology, and history. Many interpret this as a call for

a practice that is both biological and anthropological. Is

this what we do? Are we biological anthropologists yet?
In this essay, I explore what we, Physical Anthropologists, as a discipline are doing in the context of a New
Physical Anthropology, where we might be headed, and
why this discussion is crucial to our relevance. Yrbk
Phys Anthropol 53:212, 2010. V 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

The front page of our (the AAPA) Website opens with

the following quote:

around as an organization for nearly 80 years is are we

Biological Anthropologists yet?

Physical anthropology is a biological science that deals with

the adaptations, variability, and evolution of human beings and
their living and fossil relatives. Because it studies human biology in the context of human culture and behavior, physical anthropology is also a social science

A BIT OF CONTEXT

We are then, by our own denition, simultaneously, a

social and a biological science. This is a perspective that
has substantial implications if we think that concept
through. In this essay, I would like to try and convince
you that one of the major gures in our discipline, Sherwood Washburn, saw those implications nearly 60 years
ago and laid out some ideas on how to effectively follow
them through. I also want you to consider that in the
past few decades we have expanded on his vision and
are now poised to be a more thoroughly effective and
engaging biosocial science and a central contributor to
both academic/scholarly issues and to popular topics of
relevance to everyday life.
In 1951, Sherwood Washburn called for a New Physical Anthropology, a move from measurement and
classication to the processes and mechanisms of evolutionary change (Strum et al., 1999) and a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approach (Washburn,
1951) to the understanding of human behavior and biology. Striding ahead of many contemporaries, Washburn
considered behavior, biology, and history to be inseparable in answers, not only interrelated as factors. This
theme is noted and discussed in the homage book, The
New Physical Anthropology: Science, Humanism and
Critical Reection (Strum et al., 1999), but it is worth
expanding on here.
One can look around the discipline of Physical Anthropology today and ask where is Physical Anthropology
now? Are we to the point envisioned by Washburn nearly
60 years ago? With all respect to Ales Hrdlicka, the founder of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, the real question we need to ask is after being
C 2010
V

WILEY-LISS, INC.

Before embarking on the body of this essay and an answer to this question, I think it is important to address
why I am writing this piece. When I was asked to give
the luncheon address at the 2008 annual meeting of our
association, I was fully aware that such keynote talks often make their way into the pages of the Yearbook of
Physical Anthropology. So, to begin with, I saw this opportunity as a platform to address the state of our discipline and our name. However, the real reason I write on
this topic, and am so thoroughly committed to this discussion, is because of my academic lineage, my experience in our discipline, and, most importantly, because
this question matters to our profession, our practice, and
to our role in academia and society at large. We need to
be as aware as possible of our histories because they are
so critical to who we are and what we do (e.g. Little and
Kennedy, 2010). There is an alarming trend among
many students and practitioners in our discipline to
ignore historical contexts for our questions, perspectives,
and theoretical orientations today. I even wonder how
many of todays undergraduate students will hear Sherwood Washburns name, read anything he wrote, or
understand the impact of his ideas.
The initial drive to discuss this topic and its questions
emerges directly from my academic lineage: I represent
a small twig in an enormously important genealogical
tree of American Physical Anthropology and Primatology: the Sherwood Washburn lineage. A very high

*Correspondence to: Agustin Fuentes, Department of Anthropology, University of Notre Dame, 648 Flanner Hall, Notre Dame, IN
46556. E-mail: afuentes@nd.edu
DOI 10.1002/ajpa.21438
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com).

WASHBURNS NEW PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY

percentage of practicing North American biological
anthropologists and primatologists have their academic
genealogies rmly rooted in training from Sherwood
Washburn or one of his students (Kelley and Sussman,
2007). Washburn and his students are responsible for over
60% of the physical anthropology trained primatologists
since the 1960s and have had substantial inuence on the
direction and scope of research programs and publications
in the discipline at large (Haraway, 1989, Kelley and Sussman, 2007, Stini, 2010). The training provided, or inuenced, by Washburn reected his interest in evolutionary
theory, in integrated biological approaches, and in a comparative, multi- and interdisciplinary approach. That is
the heritage of the Washburn lineage.
As a student, I beneted from the milieu at UC Berkeley
in the 1980s and early 1990s in large part created by
Sherry Washburn and his students Phyllis Dolhinow and
F. Clark Howell, among others. My interest in a move
from measurement and classication to the processes and
mechanisms of evolutionary change and a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approach and my perceptions of our eld emanate from the hybrid nature of my
training in the Washburn school via my mentor Phyllis
Dolhinow. I had my undergraduate degrees from UC Berkeleys Department of Anthropology and the UC Berkeley
Department of Zoology (now part of the Department of
Integrative Biology). As a graduate student, I received my
PhD from the UC Berkeley Department of Anthropology
but continued to work with faculty from the Integrative
Biology Department and the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. Throughout my career at Berkeley I also beneted
enormously from the inuence and perspectives of some
exceedingly gracious and talented Socio/Cultural Anthropologists and Archeologists. Despite the substantial cleavage between Anthropologists and subelds in the UC
Berkeley Department of Anthropology, and in our discipline on the whole, I was encouraged to exploit an explicitly comparative and interdisciplinary approach throughout my undergraduate and graduate career. Because of
this one could say that I was academically brought up to
practice a multidisciplinary approach.
The 16 years since receiving my PhD have only reinforced the perspectives initiated in my training. As a visiting lecturer at UC Berkeley, assistant and associate professor at Central Washington University, and associate
and full professor at the University of Notre Dame, I have
come into contact with hundreds of bright and inquisitive
students. These experiences teaching and mentoring students continue to demonstrate the core importance and
relevance of integrated evolutionary and anthropological
approaches to understanding humans and our relatives.
This theme has been a dominant one in my work, and the
work of so many colleagues, as I moved through the professorial ranks, attended our meetings, published in a
wide array of journals, and conducted research in the eld
and the laboratory. This trajectory of experience leads me
to the current point where I suggest that what we do
today, as a discipline, is best represented by the term Biological Anthropology, not physical anthropology, and that
this view resonates with the published calls of Sherwood
Washburn from nearly 60 years ago.

conceptualization of a New Physical Anthropology and

how we can extend his perceptions and implications into
today. I want us to think about how his call translates to
2010 and beyond in the sense of contextualizing who we
are and what we do in a milieu of changing evolutionary,
methodological, and theoretical paradigms. I suggest
that examining emerging concepts in evolutionary
theory, what members of the association of physical
anthropologists and our allied colleagues do today, and
how these threads tie together provides a robust, afrmative, answer to my question at the start of this essay:
are we biological anthropologists yet?
At the same time that Washburn was engaged in his
early career in physical anthropology, contemporary innovation in evolutionary thinking, termed the modern synthesis, was exploding theoretical and practical perceptions
and activities in the biological sciences (Stini, 2010). In
this evolutionary synthesis, there was an understanding
that the genotype does not generally interact directly with
the environment, rather that the phenotype (morphology
and behavior) interacts with the environment, and the genotype is affected by the phenotypes success in a given
environment. The initial focus on the modern synthesis
was on modes of change (Huxley, 1942; Gould, 2002). This
initial recognition of the complexities of the interconnections between natural selection, genetic drift, and gene
ow alongside improved theoretical understandings of
mutation, and some inklings that development mattered,
made clear the necessity to move beyond static approaches
to the analysis of living and fossil organisms (e.g., Simpson, 1951). During this time period (193050s), it became
increasingly evident that measurement as an end unto
itself, static taxonomies without phylogenetic context, and
a lack of connection among studies of behavior, form, and
development precluded real advancement in the understanding of evolution, form, and function.
Washburn himself was becoming quite attuned to the
shifts in evolutionary theory and advances in the biological
and social sciences as he was maturing academically in the
193040s (Strum et al., 1999; Howell, 2003; Stini, 2010).
By the 1950s, he saw the practice of anthropology, physical
anthropology in particular, as being mired in a primarily
descriptive and classicatory mode, detached from the
energizing and complex ideas and possibilities emerging all
around it. A ditty from his writings serves to highlight his
view about a static reliance on taxonomy and description:
There once were scientists three
they are better than you or me
they looked at old bones
and often intoned
the religion of taxonomy
from the Sherwood Washburn papers (The Bancroft
Library, UC Berkeley)

Washburn distilled his thoughts in the seminal 1951

statement on the New Physical Anthropology.

WHAT DOES WASHBURNS CALL MEAN IN 2010

AND BEYOND?

The new physical anthropology has much to offer anyone

interested in the structure or evolution of man, but this is only
the beginning. To build it, we must collaborate with social scientists, geneticists, anatomists, and paleontologists. We need new
ideas, new methods, new workers. There is nothing we do today
which will not be done better tomorrow.
Washburn (1951)

I would like to take the bulk of this essay to give a

brief overview of what I see in Sherwood Washburns

Combined with a later but thematically related quote

by Washburns longtime friend the evolutionary biologist
Yearbook of Physical Anthropology

A. FUENTES

Theodosius Dobzhansky, we can see the call for a core

role of evolutionary and biobehavioral complexity in
understanding humanity:
As theoretical possibilities, one can envisage that man might
be genetically determined as aggressive or submissive, warlike
or peaceful, territorial or wanderer, selsh or generous, mean or
good. Are any of these possibilities likely to be realized? Would
the xation of any of these dispositions, so that they become
uncontrollable urges or drives, increase the adaptiveness of a
species which relies on culture for its survival? I believe that
the answers to these questions are in the negative.
Dobzhansky (1972)

I suggest that Washburns ideas were more radical

than many give him credit for. What did his call mean?
What was a new physical anthropology? In a general
sense, this is a call for a comparative, evolutionary, and
multi- and interdisciplinary approach to understanding
humanity and our relatives; a move away from reliance
on primarily typological/classicatory approaches. He
was stimulated and engaged by the excitement and innovation introduced/disseminated by the modern synthesis.
Washburn was in the middle of a milieu of emergent evolutionary theory in the late 194060s, including the
work of theorists like Dobzhansky, Mayr, Haldane,
Fisher, Wright, and physical anthropology colleagues
such as Ashley Montague, Frank Livingstone, and Loring Brace. In particular, his longstanding relationship
with Dobzhansky, including their co-organizing of the
1950 Cold Springs Harbor symposium, The Evolution and
Origin of Man, acted as a catalyst for his integrative views
(Stini, 2010). I explicitly interpret Washburns call and
intent to represent a move to have real and sincere evolutionary engagement in physical anthropology: a fusion of
typological, functional, behavioral, and evolutionary
understandings and an expansion beyond measurement
as the core of the practice of physical anthropology. For
me, this is a call for a Biological Anthropology; a context
in which both words (biological and anthropology) are
interacting and contributing synergistically rather than
merely complementing one another. This is different from
a physical anthropology where the name can be seen as
prioritizing the descriptive and structural rather than the
dynamic and evolutionary.
This interest and orientation can be best seen in the
contributions of Washburn at the level of publications,
the mentoring of students, and the innovative contributions he made to the AAPA, including the origination of
the extremely important Wenner-Gren/AAPA summer
workshops and spearheading the initiative to create the
Yearbook of Physical Anthropology (initially edited by
G.W. Lasker (Comas, 1969 in Alfonso and Little, 2005),
whose 2010 edition you are reading now.
Washburn was focused primarily on understanding
questions about adaptation and function. Although he
was a brilliant thinker, he was not fully in a research
sense, a doer. His main dissatisfaction was with the emphasis on description and his fear that by naming you
stop analyzing. This drove him to think, teach, and write
about these themes. However, I do need to emphasize
that theoretically, conceptually, and methodologically we
are currently in a much richer research and intellectual
environment than Washburn could even have imagined.
The modern synthesis is past and a new, much more
complex, and sophisticated evolutionary landscape has
emerged (Oyama et al., 2001; Gould, 2002; Odling-Smee
et al., 2003; Fuentes, 2009a). I should note that I am
Yearbook of Physical Anthropology

probably interpreting, and expanding, Washburns positions in a more radical inter- and multidisciplinary way
than he himself did, given what is available to us today
because of the explosion in methodological and theoretical innovations over the past three decades. Today, in
2010, there are reasons for using his call for a basis to
reect on our discipline, reasons which will hopefully
be evident to you by the end of this essay if they are not
already so.

MOVING WASHBURNS IDEAS, AND THEIR

OFFSPRING, INTO THE PRESENT
In a chapter entitled Description, hypothesis testing,
and conceptual advances in physical anthropology: Have
we moved on?, Larsen (2010) refers to a paper given by
George Armelagos and his former students at the 50th
anniversary of the AAPA where they criticized skeletal
biologists for not reaching the analytical or theoretical
successes of the other sciences. . . and that such articles
in the AJPA lacked inference, theory, problem, and overemphasized description. Larsen goes on to ask: Have we
heeded the advice given in 1981, and begun to develop
hypothesis driven research that allows inference about
wider issues relating our ndings to the human condition? Has our science matured, keeping pace with other
sciences, even in comparison with other subareas of our
discipline? (2010, p 238) Here, Larsen refers specically
to skeletal biology, but the call and question are in the
exact same vein as that posed by Washburn in 1951 and
reiterated by Armelagos et al. (for skeletal biology) again
in 1981.
The 1981 conference, in many ways, illustrated the
mixed successes of Washburns call 30 years on, but
where are we when nearing the 60-year mark? I would
like to suggest that by and large the eld of Physical Anthropology, in all of its areas, was well on the way to
becoming the eld of Biological Anthropology 30 years
ago and is even further along that path today. This is
semantically borne out in Little and Kennedys (2010)
edited volume Histories of American Physical Anthropology in the Twentieth Century, where most chapters begin
by referencing Physical Anthropology and end speaking about Biological Anthropology. This is probably not
an intentional pattern, but one that characterizes how
many practitioners see the eld today.
But this transition is a process, not an abrupt transformation. As noted by Howell (2003), For close on to
four decades Sherwood Washburn sought to encourage,
urge, insist, and cajole practitioners of biological anthropology-particularly the core of human evolutionary studies-to shift away from outdated methodologies, abandon
outmoded or questionable precepts, adopt modern perspectives of an emergent evolutionary biology, and practice analytical, comparative, and experimental methods
relevant to elucidation of the nature and roots of the
human condition. His epiphany emerged progressively
and sweepingly across prevalent biological and social science and wrenched but did not utterly revolutionize scientic praxis in biological anthropology as he sought and
overtly intended it should. Washburns call has not been
completed, but it is well on the way.
Howell (2003) described Washburns thinking process
as follows: His focus was programmatic across a general
concern, fortunately having at best fuzzy boundaries; in
fact his mode of thought (or play) was to ignore, to transgress such traditional limits and to usurp or to engulf

WASHBURNS NEW PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY

the useful and the relevant, regardless of disciplinary
and historical priority. He was openly and frankly iconoclastic in such respects and thus pan-disciplinary in
vision. This is a core facet that we need to hold as a priority. I think we are now nally at the stage where
Washburns (and others) pushing is at the point of
actually materializing as change in our scientic praxis.
We (the AAPA) are, in a large part, practicing a biological anthropology. To understand what I mean by this,
there are three main elements I will touch upon in the
remainder of this essay: our name, recent innovations in
theory and methodologies, and the need to truly embrace
bio- and sociocomplexity in effective quantitative and
qualitative ways.

WHAT IS IN A NAME?
Washburn (1968) said: . . .human biology has no
meaning without society. For a particular problem in the
short run, either biological or social facts may be
stressed, but the evolution of man can only be understood as a biosocial problem. This conceptualization is
core to our modern science, relevance, and complexity.
To move forward, we must be multidisciplinary and
interdisciplinary. So, it is equally important that we be
both biological and anthropological. Our current name
denotes a practice of a Physical Anthropology. . .what is
in a name? That is a good question, and it is relevant to
what we do.
Are we living up to the expectation of multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approach? Yes, in many ways
we are (as I will outline below). Using the term Biological Anthropology is a more accurate, encompassing view
of what we do. It denotes an integration of themes, perspectives, methodologies, and a dynamism, that is absent
from the image and content evoked by a physical anthropology. If you look at what is happening in our eld
and what is being represented at our annual meetings it
is obvious that the AAPA consists, mainly, of biological
anthropologists. It is critical to note that this innovation
and dynamism in methods and approaches is in addition
to ongoing classical measurement and classication usually associated with a physical anthropology. This original core of our practice remains central to our success
because without such hardcore hands-on and detailed
work the rest is not usually possible.
For example, the two species that I am currently working with are enormously variable morphologically and
adaptively (humans and long-tailed macaques) forcing me
to think simultaneously about basic measurements/
assessments and integrative/synergistic approaches. My
teams research into the humanmacaque interface in
Asia and Gibraltar requires integrating genetic analyses,
physiological measurements, geospatial modeling, evolutionary theory, behavioral and ecological observations,
ethnographic investigations, and epidemiological assessments (Fuentes et al., 2005; Fuentes, 2006; Lane et al.,
2010). This synergistic and multifaceted approach is
increasingly characteristic of many of the research projects in Biological Anthropology.
In addition to reecting what Washburn called for
over 50 years ago, the name Biological Anthropology has
a currency that reects an integrative stance on things
biological and social in a way that is potentially accessible to the public. But, why is it important that we practice biological anthropology and publicly own the arena
that sits at the interface of biology, culture, and popular

perception? Because others, many of whom do not have

our skill set and the depth of understanding, are taking
this access away from us. A quick purview of Amazon.com or the New York Times shows that most of the books
or editorials on topics that we (members of the AAPA)
specialize in are not by biological anthropologists! People
such as Jared Diamond (geographer/physiologist), Paul
Erlich (biologist), Frans DeWaal (primatologist/psychologist), Steven Pinker (evolutionary psychologist), Nicholas
Wade, Anne Gibbons, Natalie Angier, and Carl Zimmer
(science writers) are considered the experts on human
biology, behavior, ecology, and evolution and are more
known for our topics than most of us. Not that I think
that some of these books and editorials are not very good
(some are, others are not) and that Biological Anthropologists are not publishing in the popular sphere (recent
books by Craig Stanford (2003) (Upright: The Evolutionary Key to Becoming Human), Adrian Zihlman (2001)
(The Human Evolution Coloring Book), Clark Larsen
(2002) (Skeletons in Our Closet: Revealing Our Past
Through Bioarchaeology), Ian Tattersal (2008) (The Fossil Trail: How We Know What We Think We Know About
Human Evolution), Jon Marks (2009) (Why I Am Not a
Scientist: Anthropology and Modern Knowledge), and,
especially, Nina Jablonski (2008) (Skin: A Natural History) do pretty well for example) but that we need to be
there in greater numbers. Being called Biological
Anthropologists, and thinking like a biological anthropologist, makes that easier than being labeled a Physical
Anthropologist, which, in the eyes of the public and in
those of many science writers, connes us to a limited
sphere and does not engender visions of us as adopting
modern perspectives of an emergent evolutionary biology, and practice analytical, comparative, and experimental methods relevant to elucidation of the nature
and roots of the human condition (Howell, 2003). Even
if it is somewhat supercial to think about a name in
this context, public perception matters. The ways in
which the public perceives of Physical/Biological anthropologists affects how our research results, perspectives,
and proclamations about humans, and our closest relatives are received and incorporated into popular culture.
This can shape the ways in which we achieve public
relevance, governmental funding support, and impact
school curricula and general science knowledge. Because
public perception matters, our name matters.

EMERGING COMPLEXITY AND PATTERNS AND

PROCESS IN BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
Doing biological anthropology in its most sincere
forms, really accepting the eld for what it entails,
means realizing that an extreme level of biological and
social complexity exists in understanding humans, and
our close relatives, and that this impacts our research/
teaching/practice. This complexity is a modern version of
what Washburn was talking about; no one person can
master it all, nor can one subarea stand fully alone,
detached from other allied, overlapping, arenas of investigation. We must be cognizant of the presence and
implications of this complexity, practically and theoretically. This is not easy and, currently, it is not always recognized or supported by practitioners and academics at
the top of our current academic hierarchies.
There is no shame in admitting that there are currently multiple, potentially competing perspectives
within a eld. In fact, we are healthier for it. Why not
Yearbook of Physical Anthropology

A. FUENTES

acknowledge and embrace it? This diversity is evident

via a look through all the current biological anthropology
introductory textbooks on the market. We can see it
when reading and engaging with the recent publications
on Ardipithecus and the debates surrounding Homo oresiensis. Recent articles in the 2008 and 2009 Yearbook
of Physical Anthropology also exemplify these
approaches. For example, James Rillings Neuroscientic approaches and applications within anthropology,
Thomas Gillespie et al.s Integrative approaches to the
study of infectious disease: implications for biodiversity
conservation and public health, and Virginia Vitzhums
The ecology and evolutionary endocrinology of reproduction in the female human all demonstrate the need to
acknowledge and incorporate complexity, diversity, and a
biological anthropology as core to our discipline. Reading
Heather Edgars and Keith Hunleys co-edited special
issue of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology
(Vol. 139(1)) Race reconciled: How Biological Anthropologists View Human Variation is a perfect example of
this complexity, the simultaneous intellectual and public
importance of what we do, and the fact that we must
practice a biological anthropology to be successful. In an
interesting note reinforcing the importance of history,
the Edgar and Hunley AJPA issue shares much in common (including many conclusions and the range of
authors) with the 1964 volume, The Concept of Race,
edited by the Biological Anthropologist Ashley Montague
(1964), in which Sherwood Washburn wrote the nal
chapter.
This theme of complexity extends to a wide array of
other aspects of what we do from the discussions on animal culture, learning, imitation, and social niches, to the
debates about interactions between uterine environments, maternal health, social and economic contexts,
fetal development, and later in life physiologies and
growth patterns, to the discourse on anthropoid origins
and its relationships to primate phylogeny and primate
wide adaptations. Perspectives employing biosocial, developmental, and evolutionary complexity are here to
stay and must be acknowledged in real and integrative
ways. Because of this, sometimes we need to attempt
new ways of talking, thinking, and learning about our
subject to accomplish our goals. We have to work across
our traditional boundaries and be open to terminologies,
theoretical perspectives, and methodological patterns
outside of what we might have been exposed to in 1970,
1980, or even 1990.
Sherry Washburn noticed this over 40 years ago (1968)
when he said The understanding of human behavior is
too complicated and too important to be hindered by
departmental structures whose origin lies in the 19th
Century. If there is only one lesson from the last 100
(142 in our case) years of biological anthropology, it is
that knowledge cannot be usefully divided along the traditional lines and that, perhaps even more than a synthetic theory of evolution, we need a synthetic theory of
education. That new space for education and synthesis
is todays biological anthropology.

EMERGENT EVOLUTIONARY THEORY AS IT

RELATES TO BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
In this penultimate section of the essay, I provide a
few examples from emergent perspectives in evolutionary theory relevant to biological anthropology to (hopefully) drive home my points on complexity.
Yearbook of Physical Anthropology

Today is a time of a renewed interest in complexity

and diversity in evolutionary theory. The grasp of patterns and contexts of selection and the ways in which
epigenetic and developmental interactors affect outcomes
are growing by leaps and bounds. Evolutionary biologists
are expanding the toolkit for understanding and theorizing about evolutionary processes and enhancing our abilities to test and measure them. One could argue that we
are in the midst of a major expansion in evolutionary
theory akin to the impact of the modern synthesis in the
194050s. Washburn would have seen this as crucial
moment for biological anthropology, as he noted in 1951
with the emergence of the modern synthesis and its
insights and challenges to the status quo. Today, we are
in the midst of what might be termed a new modern
synthesis in evolutionary theory, and I suggest that we
should share in the essence of the Washburnian perspective and look for ways to integrate our practice with it
(see also Fuentes, 2009a,b).
Mary Jane West-Eberhards broad overview (2003) of
developmental plasticity and evolution led her to suggest
that plasticity is one of the key factors for our understanding of adaptive evolution. She argues, like many
other prominent evolutionary biologists, that reducing
the processes of development and evolutionary change to
genomic levels is not always possible or preferable.
These analyses demonstrate that evolved plasticity in
development enables the evolution of new or variant, but
adaptive, phenotypes without substantial, or even
marked, genetic change. This phenotypic plasticity and
its relation to ecologies and evolutionary patterns is of
core interest in evolutionary theory.
Recent reviews dene basic phenotypic plasticity as
the production of multiple phenotypes from a single genotype, depending on environmental conditions (Miner
et al., 2005). However, more important than the basic
denition is the evidence that a range of organisms
express phenotypic plasticity via changes in behavior,
physiology, morphology, growth, life history, and demography, and that this plasticity can occur in both individually and intergenerational contexts (Pigliucci, 2001;
Miner et al., 2005). Research into modeling this plasticity, its potential adaptive value and contexts, and its ecological impact all suggest that phenotypic plasticity is a
signicant factor for many organisms evolutionary histories and current behavior/morphology. Obviously, this
is important for practically all aspects of biological anthropology research.
The biologists Eva Jablonka and Marion Lamb (2005)
argue for recognition of evolution in four dimensions
rather than a focus on just one. They note that many
researchers principally focus on only the genetic system
of inheritance in their models of evolutionary patterns
and change. This results in the majority of hypotheses
proposed for scenarios regarding selection and adaptation relying on perspectives with explanations of causal
factors residing at the genic level, or some proxy for
genic effect. Jablonka and Lamb argue that we also
must be cognizant of up to three other inheritance systems that, potentially, have causal roles in evolutionary
change. These other systems are the epigenetic, behavioral, and symbolic inheritance systems. Epigenetic inheritance is found in all organisms, behavioral inheritance in most, and symbolic inheritance is found only
in humans. Jablonka and Lamb (2005) state that there
is more to heredity than genes, that some hereditary
variations are nonrandom in origin, that some acquired

WASHBURNS NEW PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY

information is inherited, and that evolutionary change
can result from instruction as well as selection. Beyond
biological structure, behavioral inheritance arises from
the potential selective advantage of social attention and
social learning. Many organisms transmit information
via behavior; thus, acquisition of behavioral patterns
that confer selective benets can occur through socially
mediated learning via observation and the reproduction
of behavioral patterns and cues.
The concept that selection can target more than the
genetic level, that information transfer occurs at multiple levels, and that instruction (at epigenetic, behavioral,
or symbolic levels) can also impact evolutionary change
forces a broader toolkit when constructing hypotheses
and building models of evolutionary patterns in humans
and their close relatives. This will inuence the way biological anthropologists can envision, and model, human
evolution. Models using this system will be more complex than the models of traditional Neo-Darwinian
theory; however, they may be better attuned to the
actual interactions of systems.
Developmental Systems Theory (DST) is proposed as
an alternative to what Susan Oyama calls the developmental dualism approach (Oyama, 2000). This developmental dualism approach represents development as
having some aspects driven by internal causes (genes)
and other driven by external causes (environment, or
memes/culture variants). DST is an approach that
attempts to combine multiple dimensions and interactants using a systems approach to understand development, in the broadest sense, and its evolutionary impact.
Oyama et al. (2001) summarize the main theses of
DST in six major points (in italics below). I add additional explanatory text tying the points directly to our
broader consideration of human evolution in biological
anthropology (from Fuentes, 2004, 2009b):
Joint determination by multiple causes: Every trait is
produced by the interaction of many developmental
resources. The gene/environment dichotomy is only one
of the many ways to divide up the interactants in evolutionary processes. Therefore, Neo-Darwinian explanations assuming the primacy of genes, although forceful
and important avenues for research, are not the only
venues for inquiry into human evolution. As Washburn
and many others emphasized, multiple elements affect
the development and expression of morphology and
behavior. The concepts of multiple interactants in the evolutionary process resonates well with our increased
understanding of developmental, behavioral, and other
epigenetic inuences on the subjects we study in biological anthropology.
Context sensitivity and contingency: The signicance of
any one cause is contingent on the state of the rest of the
system. Single aspects of human behavior or morphology
cannot be seen as independent in an evolutionary sense
from any others, especially given the types of plasticity
and extrasomatic manipulations evident in human
response to selection pressures. This is especially important in studies of morphology and development, as we
are increasingly aware of patterns and processes affecting pathways during growth and interconnectiveness of
various features in the evolution of complex morphological systems (such as in bipedalism).
Extended inheritance: An organism inherits a wide
range of resources that interact to construct that organisms life cycle. In humans, inherited resources include
the memory and experience of group members, the previ-

ous manipulation of the area in which the group lives,

and the patterns of cultural interaction extant in that
population. This perspective, similar to the behavioral
inheritance of Jablonka and Lamb and to niche construction (below), resonates well with the recent foci on re,
hyper-cooperation, and extrasomatic manipulation in
human evolution.
Development as construction: Neither traits nor representations of traits are transmitted to offspring. Instead,
traits are madereconstructedin development. Human
life histories are extended relative to many animals and
the symbol-rich social environment in which they exist
requires dynamic learning and is primarily socially negotiated (see also Herrmann et al., 2007). Human development is equally affected by somatic and extrasomatic factors interacting with one another during the course of
constructing the adult human. The assumption of inheritance of specic, discrete behavioral traits as units that
emerge during development is highly questionable.
Human development is a bioculturally contingent phenomenon.
Distributed control: No one type of interactant controls
development. A focus solely on selection and linear gene
phenotypeenvironment relationships, while ignoring
other dimensions of inheritance, is unlikely to effectively
explain the full range of human evolutionary patterns
and processes, or of modern human growth and development.
Evolution as construction: Evolution is not a matter of
organisms or populations being molded by their environments but of organism-environment systems changing
over time. This conceptualization envisions human evolutionary patterns as constantly constructing, and being
constructed by, constituent elements of demography,
social interactions, cultural variations, complex information transfer, and manipulation of the environment in
intra- and intergroup contexts in addition to the developmental, morphological, and ecological factors throughout
the course of life history.
Building on work of Lewontin (1983) and earlier perspectives proposed by Mayr (1963) and Waddington
(1959) and borrowing from the extended phenotype
concept of Dawkins (1982), Odling-Smee et al. (2003)
propose Niche Construction as a signicant evolutionary
force. Niche construction reects a feedback system such
that organisms engaged in niche construction signicantly modify the selection pressures acting on them, on
their descendants, and on unrelated sympatric populations (Day et al., 2003, Odling-Smee et al., 2003).
Odling-Smee et al. (2003) describe the major consequences of niche construction and their resultant three
prime implications. Niche construction impacts/alters
energy ows in ecosystems through ecosystem engineering. It holds that organisms modify their, and other,
organisms selective environments. Niche construction
creates an ecological inheritance (similar to DST
extended inheritance), including modied selection pressures, for subsequent populations, and it is a process, in
addition to natural selection, that contributes to changes
over time in the dynamic relationship between organisms and environments (niches). In the context of evolutionary theory, niche construction provides a second role
for phenotypes. For ecological theory, the focus on co-evolution between organisms and their abiotic/biotic environments promotes closer integration of ecological and
evolutionary frameworks. For the study of humans,
niche construction provides an important, potentially
Yearbook of Physical Anthropology

A. FUENTES

integrative, framework for connecting evolutionary

approaches to the social sciences (especially human evolutionary studies; Odling-Smee et al., 2003; Fuentes,
2009a,b; Fuentes et al., 2010).
It is highly probable that humans are the ultimate
niche constructors and that adding niche construction
to attempts to understand evolution makes such
attempts more complicated, but, ultimately, this complexity will be more benecial, and attractive, to
researchers looking into human evolution and behavior
(Fuentes, 2009a,b). Niche construction is of particular
relevance to humans as Odling-Smee et al. (2003) see
cultural processes as providing a particular vehicle for
niche construction; humans are born in to a world (local
environments) that is largely constructed (anthropogenic ecologies) whether they are urban dwellers,
hunter/foragers, or nomadic herders. Because of this,
niche construction, in general, and ecological inheritance, in particular, are likely to have been very important throughout human evolution.

COMPLEXITY IN OUR AREAS OF RESEARCH

Finally, I would like to move on to point out just a few
recent examples of energizing work in and around biological anthropology to demonstrate the kinds of increasing complexity that touches and shapes our research
foci, the questions we ask, and the ways we go about
answering those questions. This is by no means a comprehensive review of the relevant publications; rather, it
is a sampling to reinforce the main points of this essay.

Genomics
The emergence of genomics is having a major impact
on biological anthropology. For example, the emergent
understanding of changes in allelic function and variance in regards to mobile elements is signicant. Xing
et al. (2007) demonstrate that roughly 50% of the primate genome consists of mobile, repetitive DNA sequences such as Alu and LINE1 elements. They state that,
because of their unique mutational mechanisms, these
elements are highly useful for answering phylogenetic
questions (including the humanchimpanzeegorilla trichotomy and New World primate phylogeny). Xing et al.
(2007) also review how these elements have inuenced
fundamental ongoing processes like nonhomologous
recombination, genomic deletion, and X chromosome
inactivation.
The human microbiome project (http://nihroadmap.nih.
gov/hmp/) is another example of how our understandings
and conceptualizations of molecular genetics are changing our perceptions of how organisms interact and function. Turnbaugh et al. (2007) describe this project as a
strategy to understand the microbial components of the
human genetic and metabolic landscape and how they
contribute to normal physiology and predisposition to
disease. They note the surprise generated by the
announcement that the human genome contains only
20,000 protein-coding genes. However, they argue that
if the view of what constitutes a human is extended,
then may be more than 100,000 genes may be relevant
for humans. The microorganisms that live inside and on
humans (the microbiota) are estimated to outnumber
human somatic and germ cells by a factor of ten. Turnbaugh et al. (2007) argue that the genomes of these microbial symbionts (called the microbiome) provide
Yearbook of Physical Anthropology

traits that humans did not need to evolve on their own.

To understand the range of human genetic and physiological diversity, the microbiome and the factors that
inuence the distribution and evolution of the constituent microorganisms also need to be identied and understood. This results in important connections to ideas
about epigenetic inheritance, developmental plasticity,
niche construction, and systems approaches.

Mirror neurons
Another major issue of complexity in themes related to
biological anthropology is in mirror neurobiology; the
discovery and investigation into the patterns and functioning of mirror neurons especially in the context of
mirror neuron learning. The mirror system, found in
premotor and parietal cortices of human and monkey
brains, is thought to provide a foundation for social
understanding, social learning, and to enable the development of theory of mind and language (Rizzolati and
Sinigalia, 2008). Catmur et al. (2007) point out that cells
in the neural mirror system re not only when an individual performs an action but also when one observes
the same action performed by another agent. However, it
is unclear how mirror neurons acquire their mirror properties and how they derive the information necessary to
match observed with executed actions. Rizzolatti and
Sinigaglia and Catmur et al.s ndings indicate that the
human and macaque mirror system is, to some extent,
both a product and a process of social interaction. This is
especially important given the recent emphasis on learning, cognition, and social cooperation in primate and
human evolution (Herrmann et al., 2007; Silk, 2007;
Hart and Sussman, 2008; Burkart et al., 2009) as it
might provide a specic mechanism for the transmission
of social behaviors and for a particular kind of social
niche construction.

Increased complexity in the fossil record

In areas that have long been a traditional forte in
physical, and now biological, anthropology, the ways we
can provide context for the fossil record and the radical
expansion in the fossil and primatological data sets have
substantial impacts on our understandings, recreations
and research questions in ways that were not available
even 15 years ago. For example, Pottss (1999, 2004)
work on variable climate patterns and variability selection, Kingstons (2007) focus on a comprehensive paleoenvironmental context forcing us to consider dynamism
in the morphological, archeological, and environmental
records, and Wells and Stocks (2007) notion of the core
role of plasticity and adaptive exibility in the hominins
and a biology of a colonizing ape all argue effectively
for integrating a more dynamic, systems approach to
understanding human evolution. The publication of the
Ardipithecus (White et al., 2009) and Australopithecus
sediba fossils (Berger et al., 2010), the ongoing investigation into Homo oresiensis (Brown et al., 2004; Falk
et al., 2007; Jungers and Baab, 2009; Aiello, 2010), and
the recent substantial reviews of fossil data sets and our
understandings of Australopithecus afarensis (Kimbel
and Delezene, 2009), Paranthropus boisei (Wood and
Constantino, 2007), and Homo erectus (Anton, 2003) are
moving us closer to a true natural history of fossil taxa
rather than a reliance on extreme speculation, and eventually to real intra and interpopulational studies. These

WASHBURNS NEW PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY

overviews will start to enable the kinds of integrative
comparisons that Washburn envisioned; we are closer to
understanding how fossil hominins lived and looked
more than ever, but only a comprehensive and complex
approach will get us there. The same is true in the nonhuman primate literature as more substantial overviews
are published demonstrating a primacy of intraspecic
and intrapopulational variation (Campbell et al., 2011)
and long-standing explanatory frameworks are assessed,
modied, challenged, and possibly even discarded
(Thierry, 2008; Koenig and Borries, 2009,).

Expanding methodologies
In addition to new understandings from discoveries
and the accumulation of ever growing data sets, we are
also in the midst of a number of methodological improvements/innovations that are altering the types, qualities,
and densities of data that we can collect. For example,
Di Fiore (2003) describes how, in the past several decades, the development of novel molecular techniques and
the advent of noninvasive DNA sampling, coupled with
the ease and speed with which molecular analyses can
now be performed, have made it possible for primatologists to directly examine the tness effects of individual
behavior and to explore how variation in behavior and
social systems inuences primate population genetic
structure. Genetic assessments and characterizations of
living primates enables actual testing of hypotheses previously only assessed at supercial levels. More recently
Long et al. (2009) and The HUGO Pan-Asian SNP Consortium et al. (2009) used advances in genetic analyses
to more effectively examine and articulate how humans
really vary genetically and what that might mean in
understanding human migrations, human variation, and
our evolutionary histories.
In the context of reconstructing diets Lee-Thorp and
Sponheimer (2006) review the suite of emerging biochemical paleodietary tools based on stable isotope and
trace element archives within fossil calcied tissues.
These tools provide innovative and important ways to
get at the actual ecologies and behaviors of fossils and
might provide some insight into niche constructive
behaviors. Some signicant outcomes derived using
these methods include the demonstration of high
trophic-level diets among Neanderthals and Late Pleistocene modern humans in Glacial Europe, and the persistent inclusion of C4 grass-related foods in the diets of
Plio-Pleistocene hominins in South Africa. Of course,
Lee-Thorp and Sponheimer conclude that more contextual data from modern ecosystem and experimental
studies are needed to fully realize the potential of these
isotopic analyses, emphasizing the fact that innovations
in methods and theory do not necessarily replace longstanding data collection techniques and perspectives, but
rather integrate with them and expand our toolkits. On
a similar line, Schoeninger (2009) uses similar stable isotope methodologies on dietary patterns in North American indigenous groups to demonstrate the complexity in
the emergence and use of maize agriculture. She shows
that the stable isotope data force us to conclude that
social, economic, and environmental conditions varied
from region to region and even within regions of North
America. This means that biological assessment of
human diet and the emergence of agriculture must
include the social environment in addition to any consideration of the physical and technological environments

in which human groups construct their dietary strategies (p 638).

Biocultural anthropology
Finally, I want to acknowledge the explosion in biocultural investigations in biological anthropology as epitomizing the complexity in theory and practice. Biocultural
approaches integrate ethnographic, physiological, morphometric, and evolutionary approaches (among others)
to arrive at system-based complex and interactive conclusion about being human. For example, McDade (2005)
points out that immune function is notoriously complex,
and current biomedical research elaborates this complexity by focusing on the cellular and molecular mechanisms that characterize immune defenses. At population
level, the use of ethnographic and cross-cultural perspectives is a necessary complement to the microlevels of
analysis in biomedical immunology. The results of eldbased research on human immunity demonstrate the
relevance of cultural ecological factors, specically the
ecologies of nutrition, infectious disease, reproduction,
and psychosocial stress. McDade argues that future
research in human ecological immunology must integrate theory and method for a more contextualized
understanding of this important physiological system.
Sapolsky (2004) comes to the same conclusion as
McDade (see also Kuzawa and Sweet, 2009). Integrating
methods from eld primatology, general animal studies,
and physiology, he reviews the nature of stress, the stress
response, and stress-related disease, as well as the varieties of hierarchical systems in animals. He reviews the
literature derived from nonhuman species concerning the
connections between rank and functioning of the adrenocortical, cardiovascular, reproductive, and immune system, and the relationship is neither linear nor clean. Sapolsky expands these ndings to consider whether rank is
a relevant concept in humans and argues that socioeconomic status (SES) is the nearest human approximation
to social rank and that SES markedly inuences health.
This theme and its methodologies are markedly tested
and developed by Gravlee and colleagues (Gravlee, 2009;
Gravlee et al., 2009). They demonstrate that social inequality (in this case racial inequality) becomes literally
embodied in the physiological functioning and wellbeing of racialized groups. Human social perception and
social structuring differentially inuence the physiological
functioning of human bodies and minds. This approach
requires a synthesis of cultural, physiological, historical,
and structural data sets and ts well within the emergent
notions of plasticity, system-based approaches, and niche
construction that I covered earlier.
Resonating throughout all of these examples is the
reality that in modern biological anthropology research
team approaches are core, and that integrative evolutionary and cross-disciplinary approaches are central to
a majority of research in our discipline. I argue that
these themes are very much in line with what I propose
to be the central spine of Washburns Biological Anthropology version 2010.

SO, ARE WE BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGISTS

YET?
We are, and the work of members of our association
shows that we are. I have attempted to demonstrate in
this essay that we are well along into the emergence of
Yearbook of Physical Anthropology

10

A. FUENTES

the New Physical Anthropology, a Biological Anthropology, that Washburn called for.
However, despite my cheerleading and optimism for
who we are and what we do, there are also a number of
places that we are failing to really reach the kind of synthesis and integration that enables us to fulll the promise of a truly Biological Anthropology. More than anything, there is a need to interact across divisions within
Biological Anthropology and beyond. So, my nal question for this essay is: How can we be better Biological
Anthropologists? Here are a few parting thoughts on
where we need to improve to reach the lofty (and may be
idealistic) goals I have outlined.
We require a more sincere and engaged integration
and communication within our discipline. We need to
overcome historical divisions that have subdivided biological anthropology and start communicating more
extensively with each other. May be we could take a line
from Washburns playbook and consider attempting to
rejuvenate the Wenner-Gren summer seminars or an
AAPA sponsored equivalent? Such a process would be a
good place to start intensive talks with one another
beyond the standard AAPA conference format. Along
these same lines, we (members of the AAPA) need to
overcome the divisions with other anthropologists. The
current state of disjuncture between many biological,
social, and archeological anthropologists sometimes acts
to inhibit fuller and more effective inquiry into our
shared topics of interest. This is not all on the shoulders
of biological anthropologists; many other stripes of
anthropologists are at fault here as well. Although I am
aware that in some cases it would not be benecial to
work collaboratively with certain colleagues, I remain
convinced that we do need to link up with social and archeological anthropologists more than we do, or at least
we can try harder. Those anthropologists who do not
understand the importance of our views and what biological anthropology offers can go play by themselves, but
their answers will always be incomplete at best, as will
ours, if we do not more effectively reach across the aisles.
I have made a point to emphasize the role of complexity in our topics of study, our methodologies, and our
theoretical orientations. As Biological Anthropologists,
we need to accept complexity as here to stay and the
possibility that we might have to incorporate new terminology/perspectives in addition to the ones currently
dominating in our association (not instead of, but in
addition to). A bit of reective and integrative, may be
even philosophical, discourse is good for us and should
be part of our toolkit.
In the light of the increasingly recognized importance
of diversity in evolutionary theory, in human evolution,
in primate studies, and in almost everything we do, we
really need to increase the diversity in practitioners of
Biological Anthropology. We are relatively homogenous
in regards to race, SES, life experience, overt sexual orientation, etc., as a discipline. Although there are no published data available to examine this assertion, looking
around at the annual meetings of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists suggests at least anecdotal support for this view. Also, a recent survey (initiated by the AAPA ad hoc committee on diversity, which I
co-chair) of underrepresented ethnic groups at the
undergraduate, graduate, and faculty levels in physical
anthropology programs in the United States revealed
strong negative correlation between degree level and
underrepresented ethnic group representation (AAPA,
Yearbook of Physical Anthropology

unpublished data). We need to incorporate more diverse

voices and perspectives in our teaching and research.
This, more than anything, is going to help us reach out
to get our value as a discipline and an association more
public.
Finally, there needs to be more of a popular Biological
Anthropology. The public is hungry for reports on science, including areas addressed by biological anthropologists. The substantial public responses to the Ardipithecus publications and the announcement that Neanderthal genes continue in human populations tell us that
we can access the public interest. But, we need to be
engaging in the public eye with a wider variety of topics
and debates. We need to be better represented when
issues of core interest to our discipline are front and center on the public stage; human variation and race, biomedicine and evolution, health and disease, etc. This
means more than press releases around our meetings
and a few outreach programs (although those are terric
as well). We need to reect and ask ourselves why do so
few in the public know what we do. We have better
things to say about being human than many doctors,
psychologists, and science writers, but they are the go
to targets for the media with much more regularity
than we are. We need to be more active in public debate,
on editorial pages, in popular books and the New York
Times, on NPR, MSNBC, and CNN (even show up on
Fox if you want to).
I sincerely believe we are Biological Anthropologists,
and there is a great diversity of fantastic multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary work within our practice. As
Sherwood Washburn called on us to do nearly 60 years
ago, we must foster and enhance these activities and
perspectives inside and outside of our association and
discipline. Looking forward, we need more than ever to
continue heeding the advice of Washburn and to build on
the strengths and advances made in the recent history
of our science.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author thanks Clark Spencer Larsen for the invitation to give the 2008 AAPA Luncheon talk and to Bob
Sussman for inviting him to revise the talk as a Yearbook of Physical Anthropology essay. He is indebted to
both of them, and two anonymous reviewers, for constructive and engaging feedback on earlier verison of
this manuscript.

LITERATURE CITED
Aiello L. 2010. Five years of Homo oresiensis. Am J Phys
Anthropol 142:167179.
Alfonso MP, Little MA. 2005. Juan Comas summary history of
the American Association of Physical Anthropologists (1928
1968). Yrbk Phys Anthropol 48:163195.
Anton SC 2003. Natural history of Homo erectus. Yrbk Phys
Anthropol 46:126170.
Berger LR, De Ruiter DJ, Churchill SE, Schmid P, Carlson KL,
Dirks PHGM, Kibii JM. 2010. Australopithecus sediba: a new
species of Homo-like Australopith from South Africa. Science
328:195204.
Brown P, Sutikna T, Morwood MJ, Soejono RP, Jatmiko, Saptomo EW, Due RA. 2004. A new small-bodied hominin from
the Late Pleistocene of Flores, Indonesia. Nature 431:1055
1061.
Burkart JM, Hrdy SB, Van Schaik CP. 2009. Cooperative breeding
and human cognitive evolution. Evol Anthropol 18:175186.

WASHBURNS NEW PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY

Campbell C, Fuentes A, MacKinnon KCM, Bearder S, Stumpf
R. 2011. Primates in Perspective, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Catmur C, Walsh V, Heyes C. 2007. Sensorimotor learning congures the human mirror system. Curr Biol 17:15271531.
Dawkins R. 1982. The extended phenotype. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Day RL, Laland K, Odling-Sme J. 2003. Rethinking adaptation:
the niche construction perspective. Perspect Biol Med 46:8095.
Di Fiore A. 2003. Molecular genetic approaches to the study of
primate behavior, social organization, and reproduction. Yrbk
Phys Anthropol 46:6299.
Dobzhansky T. 1972. On the evolutionary uniqueness of
man. In: Dobzhansky T, Hecht MK, Steere WC, editors. Evolutionary biology, Vol. 6. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
p 415430.
Falk D, Hildebolt C, Smith K, Morwood MJ, Sutikna T, Jatmiko, Saptomo EW, Imhoh H, Seidler H, Prior F. 2007. Brain
shape in human microcephalics and Homo oresiensis. Proc
Natl Acad Sci USA 104:25132518.
Fuentes A. 2004. Its not all sex and violence: integrated anthropology and the role of cooperation and social complexity in
human evolution. Am Anthropol 106:710718.
Fuentes A. 2006. Human culture and monkey behavior: assessing the contexts of potential pathogen transmission between
macaques and humans. Am J Primatol 68:880896.
Fuentes A. 2009a. Evolution of human behavior. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Fuentes A. 2009b. Re-situating anthropological approaches to
the evolution of human behavior. Anthropol Today 25:1217.
Fuentes A, Southern M, Suaryana KG. 2005. Monkey forests
and human landscapes: is extensive sympatry sustainable for
Homo sapiens and Macaca fascicularis in Bali? In: Patterson
J, Wallis J, editors. Commensalism and conict: the primatehuman interface. Norman, OK: American Society of Primatology Publications. p 168195.
Fuentes A, Wyczalkowski M, MacKinnon KC. 2010. Niche construction through cooperation: a nonlinear dynamics contribution to modeling facets of the evolutionary history in the genus Homo. Curr Anthropol 51:435444.
Gould SJ. 2002. The structure of evolutionary theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Gravlee C, Non AL, Mulligan CJ. 2009. Genetic ancestry. Social
classication and racial inequalities in blood pressure in
Southeastern Puerto Rico. PLoS One 4:e6821.
Gravlee L. 2009. How race becomes biology: embodiment of
social inequality. Am J Phys Anthropol 139:4757.
Haraway D. 1989. Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature
in the Modern World of Science. New York: Routledge.
Hart DL, Sussman RW. 2008. Man the hunted: primates, predators, and human evolution. New York: Basic Books.
Herrmann E, Call J, Hernandez-Lloreda MV, Hare B, Tomasello M.
2007. Humans have evolved specialized skills of social cognition:
the cultural intelligence hypothesis. Science 317:13601366.
Howell FC. 2003. Sherwood Larned Washburn 19112000.
Biographical memoirs, Vol. 84. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
Huxley JS. 1942. Evolution: the modern synthesis. London:
Allen and Unwin.
Jablonka E, Lamb M. 2005. Evolution in four dimensions:
genetic, epigenetic, behavioral, and symbolic variation in the
history of life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jablonksi N. 2008. Skin: a natural history. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Jungers W, Baab K. 2009. The geometry of hobbits: Homo oresiensis and human evolution. Signicance 6:159164.
Kelley EA, Sussman RW. 2007. An academic genealogy on the
history of American eld primatologists. Am J Phys Anthropol
132:406425.
Kimbel WH, Delezene LK. 2009. Lucy redux: a review of research
on Australopithecus afarensis. Yrbk Phys Anthropol 52:248.
Kingston JD. 2007. Shifting adaptive landscapes: progress and
challenges in reconstructing early hominid environments.
Yrbk Phys Anthropol 50:2058.

11

Koenig A, Borries C. 2009. The lost dream of ecological determinism: time to say goodbye? Or a white queens proposal?
Evol Anthropol 18:166174.
Kuzawa CW, Sweet E. 2009. Epigenetics and the embodiement
of race: developmental origins of US racial disparities in cardiovascular health. Am Human Biol 21:215.
Lane KE, Lute M, Rompis A, Wandia IN, Arta Putra IGA, Hollocher H, Fuentes A. 2010. Pests, pestilence, and people: the
long-tailed macaque and its role in the cultural complexities
of Bali. In: Gursky-Doyen S, Supriatna J, editors. Indonesian
primates, developments in primatology: progress and prospects. Berlin: Springer Science. p 235248.
Larsen CS. 2002. Skeletons in our closet: revealing our past through
bioarchaeology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Larsen CS. 2010. Description, hypothesis testing, and conceptual advances in physical anthropology: have we moved on?
In: Little MA, Kennedy KAR, editors. Histories of American
physical anthropology in the twentieth century. New York:
Rowman and Littleeld. p 233242.
Lee-Thorp J, Sponheimer M. 2006. Contributions of biogeochemistry to understanding hominin dietary ecology. Yrbk Phys
Anthropol 49:131148.
Lewontin R. 1983. Gene, organism and environment. In: Bendall DS, editor. Evolution form molecules to men. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Little MA, Kennedy KAR. 2010. Histories of American physical
anthropology in the twentieth century. New York: Rowman
and Littleeld.
Long JC, Li J, Healy ME. 2009. Human DNA sequences: more
variation and less race. Am J Phys Anthropol 139:2334.
Marks J. 2009. Why I am not a scientist: anthropology and modern knowledge. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Mayr E. 1963. Animal speciation and evolution. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
McDade T. 2005. The ecologies of human immune function.
Annu Rev Anthropol 34:495521.
Miner BG, Sultan SE, Morgan SG, Padilla DK, Relyea RA.
2005. Ecological consequences of phenotypic plasticity. Trends
Ecol Evol 20:685692.
Montague A. 1964. The concept of race. Toronto, ON: The Macmillan Company.
Odling-Smee FJ, Laland KN, Feldman MW. 2003. Niche construction: the neglected process in evolution. Monographs in population biology, no. 37. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Oyama S. 2000. Evolutions eye: a systems view of the biologyculture divide. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Oyama S, Grifths PE, Gray RD. 2001. Introduction: what is
developmental systems theory? In: Oyama S, Grifths PE,
Gray RD, editors. Cycles of contingency: developmental systems and evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. p 112.
Pigliucci M. 2001. Phenotypic plasticity: beyond nature and nurture. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Potts R. 1999. Variability selection in hominid evolution. Evol
Anthropol 7:8196.
Potts R. 2004. Sociality and the concept of culture in human
origins. In: Sussman RW, Chapman AR, editors. The origins
and nature of sociality. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. p 249
269.
Rizzolatti G, Sinigaglia C. 2008. Mirrors in the Brain. How We
Share our Actions and Emotions. Oxford University Press.
Sapolsky RM. 2004. Social status and health in human and
other animals. Annu Rev Anthropol 33:393418.
Schoeninger M. 2009. Stable isotope evidence for the adoption
of maize agriculture. Curr Anthropol 50:633640.
Silk JB. 2007. Social component of tness in primate groups.
Science 317:13471351.
Simpson GG. 1951. The meaning of evolution. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Stanford CB. 2003. Upright: the evolutionary key to becoming
human. New York: Houghton-Mifin.
Stini WA. 2010. Sherwood Washburn and the new physical anthropology. In: Little MA, Kennedy KAR, editors. Histories of
American physical anthropology in the twentieth century.
New York: Rowman and Littleeld. p 173186.

Yearbook of Physical Anthropology

12

A. FUENTES

Strum SC, Lindburg DG, Hamburg D, editors. 1999. The new

physical anthropology: science, humanism and critical reection. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. p 277285.
Tattersal I. 2008. The fossil trail: how we know what we think
we know about human evolution. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
The HUGO Pan-Asian SNP Consortium,Abdulla MA, Ahmed I,
Assawamakin A, Bhak J, Brahmachari SK, Calacal GC,
Chaurasia A, Chen CH, Chen J, Chen YT, Chu J, Cutiongcode la Paz EM, De Ungria MC, Deln FC, Edo J, Fuchareon S,
Ghang H, Gojobori T, Han J, Ho SF, Hoh BP, Huang W, Inoko
H, Jha P, Jinam TA, Jin L, Jung J, Kangwanpong D, Kampuansai J, Kennedy GC, Khurana P, Kim HL, Kim K, Kim S, Kim
WY, Kimm K, Kimura R, Koike T, Kulawonganunchai S, Kumar
V, Lai PS, Lee JY, Lee S, Liu ET, Majumder PP, Mandapati KK,
Marzuki S, Mitchell W, Mukerji M, Naritomi K, Ngamphiw C,
Niikawa N, Nishida N, Oh B, Oh S, Ohashi J, Oka A, Ong R,
Padilla CD, Palittapongarnpim P, Perdigon HB, Phipps ME,
Png E, Sakaki Y, Salvador JM, Sandraling Y, Scaria V, Seielstad
M, Sidek MR, Sinha A, Srikummool M, Sudoyo H, Sugano S,
Suryadi H, Suzuki Y, Tabbada KA, Tan A, Tokunaga K, Tongsima S, Villamor LP, Wang E, Wang Y, Wang H, Wu JY, Xiao H,
Xu S, Yang JO, Shugart YY, Yoo HS, Yuan W, Zhao G, Zilfalil
BA;Indian Genome Variation Consortium. 2009. Mapping
human genetic diversity in Asia. Science 326:15411545.
Thierry B. 2008. Primate socioecology: the lost dream of ecological determinism. Evol Anthropol 17:9396.

Yearbook of Physical Anthropology

Turnbaugh PJ, Ley RE, Hamady M, Fraser-Liggett CM, Knight

R, Gordon JI. 2007. The human microbiome project. Nature
449:804810.
Waddington CH. 1959. Canalization of development and
genetic assimilation of acquired characters. Nature 183:
16541655.
Washburn SL. 1951. The new physical anthropology. Trans NY
Acad Sci 13:298304.
Washburn SL. 1968. The study of human evolution. Eugene,
OR: Oregon State System of Higher Education.
Wells JCK, Stock JT. 2007. The biology of the colonizing ape.
Yrbk Phys Anthropol 50:191222.
West-Eberhard MJ. 2003. Developmental plasticity and evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.
White TD, Asfaw B, Beyene Y, Haile-Selassie Y, Lovejoy
CO, Suwa G, WoldeGabriel G. 2009. Ardipithecus ramidus and the paleobiology of early hominids. Science
326:7586.
Wood B, Constantino P. 2007. Paranthropus boisei: fty
years of evidence and analysis. Yrbk Phys Anthropol 50:106
132.
Xing J, Witherspoon DJ, Ray DA, Batzer MA, Jorde LB. 2007.
Mobile DNA elements in primate and human evolution. Yrbk
Phys Anthropol 50:219.
Zihlman A. 2001. The human evolution coloring book, 2nd ed.
New York: Harper-Collins.